If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Last visited

Community Reputation

About Somewhere

Profile Information

I once attended Insight, which is a cousin of Landmark with less aggressive marketing. These courses are collectively known as Large Group Awareness Trainings (LGATs). Attendees are supposed to keep the material secret but there is an accurate, detailed and entertaining account of the more traditional EST/Insight experience here: http://www.caic.org.au/psyther/lgat/lgat1.htm (for later pages, just edit that web address, changing the 1 to a 2 etc, because the links on the pages themselves don't work). The Landmark syllabus is apparently a little different, but similar. The emphasis, as others have mentioned, is on taking personal responsibility; to some that is a revelation, but if it's something you already do, then you will probably not benefit from the course, apart from the experience of a weird sleep-deprived weekend.

The reasons that people usually "deny" catastrophic global warming are specific to that topic. There are real concerns about the science. Many climate sceptics are former environmentalists who actually looked at the science and were shocked at what they saw, Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat.com being one example. Many supporters of climate change alarm are science groupies who don't actually look at the science themselves. Personally, the argument I find most compelling is: if the evidence for catastrophic CO2-induced climate change is overwhelming, why don't they just present a concise summary of that evidence? Instead over the years we've had a string of weak papers to try to convince the public that recent warming is something unusual, such as MBH 1998 (inappropriate statistical technique that creates hockey sticks, selective use of time series that happen to be hockey-stick-shaped) and Gergis et al (withdrawn just hours before they would have been independently found out for not having detrended their data as they claimed to have).
Regarding other forms of pollution, one of the problems with climate change campaigning is that it diverts vast resources away from addressing real pollution problems. The climate change movement doesn't actually care very much about the environment (they don't mind if their policies such as biofuel mandates damage the environment), just as socialists don't care very much about the poor (they don't mind if their policies keep the poor that way).

Actuaries give men around 5 years' additional life expectancy just for being married. Even divorced, widowed and separated men have somewhat higher life expectancy than "never married" with otherwise identical profiles. That doesn't sit well with the idea that marriage is bad for men. The stats are similar for women, although married women only live around 3 years longer than otherwise identical "never married" women.

Here in the UK, older people were chastised for voting for Brexit last year, against the wishes of younger voters who would have to live with the consequences for longer. It looks like the establishment won't be able to use that line in the upcoming French election.
There's an interesting graphic from the Financial Times on this page: https://forecastingintelligence.org/2017/03/19/populist-politics-and-the-dutch-elections/showing that Le Pen gets much of her support from the young.
The FT's title on the original graphic was "Economic frustration drives young French voters towards Le Pen".

There's a link to his questionnaire from the page below:
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/trump-is-asking-for-your-suggestions-interesting-lets-see/

There's a petition to "pardon" Julian Assange: https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-pardon-julian-assange
The petition is directed at Donald Trump, so it covers the presumed threat of Julian's extradition to the USA, not Julian's prosecution in Sweden for alleged rape, which would presumably go ahead if the US extradition threat was lifted.
Sign and/or share if you think it's a good cause.

Regarding the permafrost global warming scare, here's another viewpoint: http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/01/permafrost-far-more-stable-than-claimed-german-expert-calls-danger-of-it-thawing-out-utter-imbicility/ Methane release from thawing permafrost is one of the things that people have brought up in the past like the possibility (now not taken seriously) that global warming "could" shut down the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic, bringing freezing weather to Europe.

I'm no expert on the genre (I could never handle the pink cards in Trivial Pursuit) but my first reaction is, it's far from universally true. Charlie's Angels, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Kill Bill? So maybe the other shows really weren't so good? Films with male leads also flop. One criticism of Ghostbusters was that all the male characters were stupid or evil, with Bill Murray's character being thrown out of a window; how would your feminist acquaintance have reacted to a film in which all female characters were stupid or evil and a woman was thrown out of a window, and would her reaction also be "really gross"?

Look for another place. I don't know how it works in Berlin, but here in London, July is an easy month to find accommodation; the time to avoid if possible is September/October when you're competing with all the university students. In a similar situation, within a week I had moved to a better place at the same rent - in fact I found mine through a friend on Facebook who was advertising for a friend.

I think there is a real problem with tariffs, because in addition to the standard economic distortions introduced by any form of taxation, tariffs discriminate between two classes of producer, foreign and domestic.

There may be a tendency for men to overreport and women to underreport, but assuming those figures are correct, all you can infer from them is that the female distribution of number of partners is more skewed (a minority of women having a relatively large number of partners) than the male distribution is. As you suggest, the male distribution is likely also skewed, but those figures tell you nothing about that.
The figures are of course medians rather than means; the mean number of partners is the same for both sexes, assuming a closed heterosexual population for simplicity.

Specifically on tariffs, there's a blog post by Criton Zoakos:
"There is overwhelming historical evidence that links protectionism with rapid growth, especially in US economic history"
https://letopostscripts.net/2016/05/16/myths-of-free-trade-and-protectionism/
New Zealand had a highly protectionist economy in the 1950s and 1960s and it thrived.
But I'd want to know a lot more to be persuaded. As with epidemiological studies in medicine, there are so many confounding factors to be considered.